Saturday, September 13, 2008

Thanks, Charles Krauthammer!

Bill Steiner sent me a link to this Charles Krauthammer's article on Sarah Palin and the "Bush Doctrine". I am very grateful. It answers the questions I had. When I watched Sarah, I didn't see confusion, I saw caution. I thought that was smart to make Gibson clarify his question. Then I got into work and one of the girls asked "Isn't it bad that Sarah Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was?" I explained that the question wasn't clear enough as originally asked and I would have prompted Gibson for clarification as well. It was pointed out that the panel my coworker was watching commented that the exchange showed Palin didn't know the "Bush Doctrine". I disagreed, but I wondered what I was missing.

Now this article makes everything clear and I am back on solid ground.
*****************************************
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

5 comments:

Steeljaw Scribe said...

I *work* with that for a living (national strategy/doctrine) and the first thought that popped into my mind when he asked the question was "which one Charlie?" followed immediately by the realization all he was looking for was a "gotcha" moment than a cogent response.
Sarah did well in a difficult interview especially when you see the edited out portions.
- SJS

Boquisucio said...

How do I miss living/working in the D.C. Area. Back in the 90's I used to work right at Dupont Circle. I guess that Mr. Krauthammer used to work there also. Every so often I would bump into him bombing his way up M Street in his wheelchair, with a possessed look in his face. LOL

Somerville Slim said...

Nobody knows what the Bush doctrine is, and that includes George W.

BostonMaggie said...

Sorry Somerville Slim - He knows even if you want to cast him as the fool. I know, and I agree with it.

Our security will be enhanced bythe spread of democracy in the Middle East and all over the Gap. The more people who are brought into the Core, the better for all of us.

I also believe in pre-emption. You do realize that we don't make a policeman wait until he has actually bee shot before he can fire on a suspect. In certain circumstances he can shot when the weapon is leveled at him. That's pre-emption.

Also, if you are a state that knowingly harbors transnational terrorists, you are not our friend and that's how we'll treat you.

Stella said...

Somerville Slim and Maggie, Cheney that knows what the Bush doctrine is.